New York Times: “Broad Attacks in Debate”
Yes, the New York Times was referring to Hillary.
I jumped on Real Clear Politics a few minutes ago and noticed that the first story for today on its Politics and Election News section was a NYT story titled “Clinton Employs Broad Attacks in Debate.” Do I even have to explain why that’s funny? I guess it would have been funnier if the story said “Clinton Employs Nappy-Headed Ho Attacks in Debate,” but that’s not the point.
So, I click the link to discover that it doesn’t refer to Hillary as a “broad” in the headline. Instead, it plays on the “nasty, icy ex-wife” stereotype: “Clinton Uses Sharp Attacks in Tense Debate.” Sounds like divorce court, doesn’t it?
So I’m wondering, did RCP make up its own knee-slappin’ headline or did the NYT try to slide the “broad” language past everyone? It made me think of when I was editor for a large military newspaper. One of my combat correspondents was assigned to cover an on-base charity bowling fundraiser. He also took photos. For one of the photos, he submits the following caption: “Marines shine their balls before hitting the lanes for charity.” Uh yeah, buddy, nice try.
As in the tank for Obama as the NYT is, I figured I knew the answer to my above question. I was right. It was the Times. Click here and read the Explorer bar up top. And here.
I wonder who called them on it?
Email This
Posted by Greg Scott on April 17, 2008 11:10 am
» Filed Under Elections, Humor, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL:
